Proneutron
SOC-13
This is a thread about CE/SRD small craft. Where the smallest M drive yields 2G for a 10t ship and 1G for a 20t ship. But thanks for the explanation anyway.
15 ton small craft (RV) Cepheus/SRD/MgT1
- Thread starter Proneutron
- Start date
This is a thread about CE/SRD small craft. Where the smallest M drive yields 2G for a 10t ship and 1G for a 20t ship. But thanks for the explanation anyway.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
The CE standard small craft are modelled after the LBB2 originals, so that is why they have the performance they have in CE.
Proneutron
SOC-13
In CE a ship's boat doesn't have 6G accel using an A drive
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Did anyone say it did?
Obviously CE craft are built using CE...
A Ship's Boat was 6 G in LBB2'77 (presumably because an A drive would give a 30 Dt potential 6 as it is 1/3 the size of a 100 Dt hull), so a Ship's Boat in CE has 6 G (with whatever drive that needs in CE).
Proneutron
SOC-13
Yes, below. Hence my original question o , "Why what?"
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Where? I can't find anyone saying CE small craft use LBB2 drives?
I think the theory here is that CE small craft are modeled on LBB2:'81 small craft, which were in turn re-worked versions of LBB2:'77 small craft. It's the '77 ones that were (roughly) based on the performance of LBB2 drives because they hadn't yet developed consistent small craft design rules. It's not an assertion that the characteristics (tonnage and cost) of the drives are straight out of LBB2.
The fact that the formula for the size of LBB2 maneuver drives breaks down for values of less than 200 "tons of thrust" probably ought to matter here, but doesn't.
The fact that the formula for the size of LBB2 maneuver drives breaks down for values of less than 200 "tons of thrust" probably ought to matter here, but doesn't.
Proneutron
SOC-13
CE small craft are derived from the MgT SRD & MgT1 HG.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Which were themselves derived from CT.
When Mongoose got the license to produce a new edition of Traveller they aimed to take CT and update it- hence the return to letter drive tables in the core rule book among other things.
When Mongoose got the license to produce a new edition of Traveller they aimed to take CT and update it- hence the return to letter drive tables in the core rule book among other things.
Proneutron
SOC-13
Right, but 2 times removed and not a clone. Hence you cannot take rules straight across. Which was my point. T4 was also derived from CT.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
And no-one is using CT rules in CE, just recreating the iconic small craft from CT.
Hence the standard small craft in CE has the performance they have, for reasons buried in time from 1977.
Proneutron
SOC-13
Correct. Other than same size and name; performance is often different as I pointed out. Thanks for playing though.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
No, you didn't. Changing your argument again?
| Name | Size | Perf CE | Perf CT |
| Fighter | 10 Dt | 6 G | 6 G |
| Launch | 20 Dt | 1 G | 1 G |
| Ship's Boat | 30 Dt | 6 G | 6 G |
| Pinnace | 40 Dt | 5 G | 5 G |
| Cutter | 50 Dt | 4 G | 4 G |
| Shuttle | 90 Dt | 3 G | 3 G |
What's so different?
Proneutron
SOC-13
Other uses for this small craft are as an executive transport in systems like Glisten. One version has 3 small staterooms instead of the accommodations listed here. Some people live in them full time much like some on ancient Earth used to on boats. Only coming to ports to resupply and maintain the vessel.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Classic Traveller retcons itself on spaceship design, trying to impose some form of coherency on it, with High Guard.
Since engineering now is minimum one tonne per unit, with customization, High Guard template is more optimal; best you can do is try to min/max Book Two alphabet drives, and as I recall, it's usually for short range spacecraft.
Since engineering now is minimum one tonne per unit, with customization, High Guard template is more optimal; best you can do is try to min/max Book Two alphabet drives, and as I recall, it's usually for short range spacecraft.
Proneutron
SOC-13
Yes, but no need to use CT. It was good in the day but the game has moved on. It must adapt rules to new knowledge. Best case in point is the size, price and power consumption of computers since CT. You adjust rules so the game doesn't go out of date. Sensors is another area. Whomever wrote the rules on sensors had no real education in the area of basic science that governs passive sensors. So, you update as you go.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Eh, you just don't use the computer rules as written but abstract the computing power AS sensors with DMs like in HG combat, and the investment/tech/reward works out.
And, you don't have to stick with Atomic Rockets' hard science creed if you don't want to. YUMV.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
High Guard 79 and 80 are similar but very different universe paradigms to CT 77/81 - there are significant differences between the High Guard (both versions) tech paradigm and those of 77 and 81.
Now here is the thing - there were three revised versions of CT published post High Guard, and none of them tied the CT LBB2/3 rules to the High Guard introduced paradigms
High Guard didn't impose coherence, it added to the conflicting self contradiction of the game rules.
With CE we can write rules to correct this, or leave it a mess.
Proneutron
SOC-13
??? WHAT? Reread EXACTLY what I wrote.
Proneutron
SOC-13
Yes, I rewrote the hull config rules vis-a-vis landing and take off from planets as they were just a mess as they came from MgT1 where they were messed up.
I never bought MgT2 to see if they were corrected there.
Om another note. CE/MgT HG capital ship design rules can be used with smaller ships as they published small craft using Capital ship design elements like aero fins. This is for someone (forgot who) who said one could NOT use SRD HG rules to design a J1 drive for 100t ship as it was HG capital ship design rules.
Similar threads
